Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have evaluated the use of intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis who were receiving vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shown mixed results with respect to the risk of death and organ dysfunction. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been in the ICU for no longer than 24 hours, who had proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis, and who were receiving a vasopressor to receive an infusion of either vitamin C (at a dose of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matched placebo administered every 6 hours for up to 96 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (defined by the use of vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new renal-replacement therapy) on day 28. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients underwent randomization (435 to the vitamin C group and 437 to the control group). The primary outcome occurred in 191 of 429 patients (44.5%) in the vitamin C group and in 167 of 434 patients (38.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01). At 28 days, death had occurred in 152 of 429 patients (35.4%) in the vitamin C group and in 137 of 434 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.40) and persistent organ dysfunction in 39 of 429 patients (9.1%) and 30 of 434 patients (6.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.05). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding organ-dysfunction scores, biomarkers, 6-month survival, health-related quality of life, stage 3 acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemic episodes. In the vitamin C group, one patient had a severe hypoglycemic episode and another had a serious anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with sepsis receiving vasopressor therapy in the ICU, those who received intravenous vitamin C had a higher risk of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation; LOVIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680274.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study. RESULTS: Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00-1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h. CONCLUSIONS: qSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions.

Ketamine Analgo-sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults: A Rapid Practice Guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence­based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Preferences for albumin use in adult intensive care unit patients with shock: An international survey.

INTRODUCTION: Use of albumin is suggested for some patients with shock, but preferences for its use may vary among intensive care unit (ICU) physicians. METHODS: We conducted an international online survey of ICU physicians with 20 questions about their use of albumin and their opinion towards a randomised trial among adults with shock comparing the use versus no use of albumin. RESULTS: A total of 1248 respondents participated, with a mean response rate of 37%, ranging from 18% to 75% across 21 countries. Respondents mainly worked in mixed ICUs and 92% were specialists in intensive care medicine. The reported use of albumin in general shock varied as 18% reported 'almost never', 22% 'rarely', 34% 'occasionally', 22% 'frequently' and 4% 'almost always' using albumin. In septic shock, 19% reported 'almost never', 22% 'rarely', 29% 'occasionally', 22% 'frequently' and 7% 'almost always' using albumin. Physicians' preferences were more consistent for haemorrhagic- and cardiogenic shock, with more than 45% reporting 'almost never' using albumin. While the reported use of albumin for other purposes than resuscitation was infrequent (40%-85% reported 'almost never' for five other indications), the most frequent other indications were low serum albumin levels and improvement of the efficacy of diuretics. Most respondents (93%) would randomise adult ICU patients with shock to a trial of albumin versus no albumin. CONCLUSIONS: In this international survey, the reported preferences for the use of albumin in adult ICU patients with shock varied considerably among surveyed ICU physicians. The support for a future randomised trial was high.

Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Sedation in Critically Ill Patients and Dose-associated 90-Day Mortality: A Secondary Cohort Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial (SPICE III).

Rationale: The SPICE III (Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation) trial reported significant heterogeneity in mortality with dexmedetomidine treatment. Supplemental propofol was commonly used to achieve desirable sedation. Objectives: To quantify the association of different infusion rates of dexmedetomidine and propofol, given in combination, with mortality and to determine if this is modified by age. Methods: We included 1,177 patients randomized in SPICE III to receive dexmedetomidine and given supplemental propofol, stratified by age (>65 or ⩽65 yr). We used double stratification analysis to produce quartiles of steady infusion rates of dexmedetomidine while escalating propofol dose and vice versa. We used Cox proportional hazard and multivariable regression adjusted for relevant clinical variable to evaluate the association of sedative dose with 90-day mortality. Measurements and Main Results: Younger patients (598 of 1,177 [50.8%]) received significantly higher doses of both sedatives compared with older patients to achieve comparable sedation depth. On double stratification analysis, escalating infusion rates of propofol to 1.27 mg/kg/h at a steady dexmedetomidine infusion rate (0.54 µg/kg/h) was associated with reduced adjusted mortality in younger but not older patients. This was consistent with multivariable regression modeling (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.78; P < 0.0001) adjusted for baseline risk and interaction with dexmedetomidine dose. In contrast, among younger patients, using multivariable regression, escalating dexmedetomidine infusion rate was associated with increased adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.65; P = 0.029). Conclusions: In patients ⩽65 years of age sedated with dexmedetomidine and propofol combination, preferentially increasing the dose of propofol was associated with decreased adjusted 90-day mortality. Conversely, increasing dexmedetomidine may be associated with increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01728558).

Interferon Beta-1b and Lopinavir-Ritonavir for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether combined treatment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hospitalized with Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled patients at nine sites in Saudi Arabia. Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed MERS were randomly assigned to receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 days. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025. Prespecified subgroup analyses and safety analyses were conducted. Because of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, the data and safety monitoring board requested an unplanned interim analysis and subsequently recommended the termination of enrollment and the reporting of the results. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were enrolled; 43 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the placebo group. A total of 12 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 23 (44%) in the placebo group died by day 90. The analysis of the primary outcome, with accounting for the adaptive design, yielded a risk difference of -19 percentage points (upper boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment within 7 days after symptom onset led to lower 90-day mortality than use of placebo (relative risk, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.75), whereas later treatment did not. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (9%) in the intervention group and in 10 (19%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo among patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed MERS. The effect was greatest when treatment was started within 7 days after symptom onset. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; MIRACLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843.).

Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions. SUBJECTS: Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

Association of early mobility with the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis and mortality among critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis of PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the mobility levels among critically ill patients and the association of early mobility with incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter PREVENT trial, which evaluated adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h and found no effect on the primary outcome of incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis. Mobility levels were documented daily up to day 28 in the ICU using a tool with an 8-point ordinal scale. We categorized patients according to mobility levels within the first 3 ICU days into three groups: early mobility level 4-7 (at least active standing), 1-3 (passive transfer from bed to chair or active sitting), and 0 (passive range of motion). We evaluated the association of early mobility and incident lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality by Cox proportional models adjusting for randomization and other co-variables. RESULTS: Of 1708 patients, only 85 (5.0%) had early mobility level 4-7 and 356 (20.8%) level 1-3, while 1267 (74.2%) had early mobility level 0. Patients with early mobility levels 4-7 and 1-3 had less illness severity, femoral central venous catheters, and organ support compared to patients with mobility level 0. Incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 1/85 (1.3%) patients in the early mobility 4-7 group, 7/348 (2.0%) patients in mobility 1-3 group, and 50/1230 (4.1%) patients in mobility 0 group. Compared with early mobility group 0, mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 were not associated with differences in incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 8.90; p = 0.87 and 0.91, 95% CI 0.39, 2.12; p = 0.83, respectively). However, early mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 had lower 90-day mortality (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 1.01; p = 0.052, and 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h were mobilized early. Early mobility was associated with reduced mortality, but not with different incidence of deep-vein thrombosis. This association does not establish causality, and randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether and to what extent this association is modifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline.

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Epidemiology, Management, and Outcomes of Sepsis in ICUs among Countries of Differing National Wealth across Asia.

Rationale: Directly comparative data on sepsis epidemiology and sepsis bundle implementation in countries of differing national wealth remain sparse. Objectives: To evaluate across countries/regions of differing income status in Asia 1) the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of sepsis as a reason for ICU admission and 2) sepsis bundle (antibiotic administration, blood culture, and lactate measurement) compliance and its association with hospital mortality. Methods: A prospective point prevalence study was conducted among 386 adult ICUs from 22 Asian countries/regions. Adult ICU participants admitted for sepsis on four separate days (representing the seasons of 2019) were recruited. Measurements and Main Results: The overall prevalence of sepsis in ICUs was 22.4% (20.9%, 24.5%, and 21.3% in low-income countries/regions [LICs]/lower middle-income countries/regions [LMICs], upper middle-income countries/regions, and high-income countries/regions [HICs], respectively; P < 0.001). Patients were younger and had lower severity of illness in LICs/LMICs. Hospital mortality was 32.6% and marginally significantly higher in LICs/LMICs than HICs on multivariable generalized mixed model analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-3.37; P = 0.049). Sepsis bundle compliance was 21.5% at 1 hour (26.0%, 22.1%, and 16.2% in LICs/LMICs, upper middle-income countries/regions, and HICs, respectively; P < 0.001) and 36.6% at 3 hours (39.3%, 32.8%, and 38.5%, respectively; P = 0.001). Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours was the only element independently associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.08; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Sepsis is a common cause of admission to Asian ICUs. Mortality remains high and is higher in LICs/LMICs after controlling for confounders. Sepsis bundle compliance remains low. Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours from diagnosis is associated with increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.ctri.nic.in (CTRI/2019/01/016898).

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Association of KIR gene polymorphisms with COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Natural killer (NK) cells play an essential role against viruses. NK cells express killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) which regulate their activity and function. The polymorphisms in KIR haplotypes confer differential viral susceptibility and disease severity caused by infections. We investigated the association between KIR genes and COVID-19 disease severity. METHODS: 424 COVID-19 positive patients were divided according to their disease severity into mild, moderate and severe. KIR genes were genotyped using next generation sequencing (NGS). Association between KIR genes and COVID-19 disease severity was conducted and significant correlations were reported. RESULTS: In the COVID-19 patients, KIR Bx genotype was more common than AA genotype. The Bx genotype was found more frequently in patients with mild disease, while in severe disease the AA genotype was more common than the Bx genotype. The KIR2DS4 gene carried the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection (OR 8.48, pc= 0.0084) followed by KIR3DL1 (OR 7.61, pc= 0.0192). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that KIR2DS4 and KIR3DL1 genes carry risk for severe COVID-19 disease.

Early Sedation with Dexmedetomidine in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).